Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry

Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry
Csaba Csaki and colleagues theorize a possible solution to a longstanding mystery bolstered by the recent discovery of the Higgs boson – a way to preserve the theory of supersymmetry.

(Phys.org) —It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives all other particles their mass, discovered at the Large Hadron Collider in 2012.

For many scientists, it's only the beginning. When the LHC fires up again in 2015 at its highest-ever collision energy, theorists like Csaba Csaki, Cornell professor of physics, will be watching.

Earlier this year in Physical Review Letters, Csaki and colleagues theorized a possible solution to a longstanding mystery bolstered by the recent discovery of the Higgs – a way to preserve the theory of , a popular, but experimentally unproven, extension of the Standard Model of particle physics.

Supersymmetry could help explain the unusual properties of the Higgs boson, why the strong and weak interactions of subatomic appear to be so different, as well as the origin of dark matter, which makes up a quarter of the universe.

The Standard Model deals with three of nature's fundamental forces: strong, weak and electromagnetic, which govern the relationships between all the known . Supersymmetry extends the Standard Model by  introducing new particles, called "superpartners"; every observed particle would have a corresponding superpartner, with similar properties to those of the observed particles, except heavier and with different spin values.

Some scientists think supersymmetry ought to be abandoned after the LHC failed to detect any of these superpartners; some of them, like the top quark's superpartner, the "stop," is predicted to be so light that the LHC should already have seen it.

In their paper, Csaki and colleagues counter that the particles may be hidden by the noise of other particles formed during the LHC's unprecedented energy of proton-proton collisions.

Their idea has to do with a concept called R-parity. All observed particles are assumed to have positive R-parity, while the unobserved superpartners would be negative, implying that the superpartners cannot decay to ordinary particles exclusively.

Searching for the superpartners at the LHC, Csaki explained, has largely operated under the assumption that this R-parity is always exactly conserved. Csaki and colleagues pose a scenario in which R-parity is violated, and would result in a series of interactions giving rise to particle decays that would be nearly impossible to detect by the LHC's current parameters.

"The upshot is that there are ways to hide supersymmetry at the LHC," Csaki said. "If the signal isn't very different from the background, it's very hard to find them. That's the problem."

The LHC, when back online next year, is scheduled to run at a collision energy of 14 TeV (teraelectron volts) – about double the energy of previous runs. It could lead to ultimate proof of the theory of supersymmetry, which Csaki deems the "most beautiful" of the Standard Model extensions offered today – but science must make room for all possibilities.

"It's very possible that supersymmetry is not the right theory, and that's OK," he said. "The important thing is to understand the way science works, to try and make the best guesses you can, and the experimentalists go and check it. … We have to make sure we are exploring every corner, and we shouldn't leave some potentially reasonable theory out where things could be hiding."


Explore further

Higgs quest deepens into realm of 'New Physics'

More information: "Dynamical R-Parity Violation." Csaba Csaki, Eric Kuflik, Tomer Volansky. arXiv:1309.5957 [hep-ph] DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.131801
Journal information: arXiv

Provided by Cornell University
Citation: Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry (2014, September 16) retrieved 19 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-09-cornell-theorists-supersymmetry.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 16, 2014
I just like to wander could CERN be bit modified and turn into stroboscopic WIMPs scanner ??

Sep 16, 2014
Sure, for another 8 billion euros...


Sep 16, 2014
"It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: "

That is breathlessly repeated endlessly.
What about Quantum Erasure? An unsolved mystery from 1927, no less.

"Never let them tell you that they know what is going on. They dont." Prof. M.

Sep 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 16, 2014
Hi Aligo. :) From the end of the article:
It could lead to ultimate proof of the theory of supersymmetry, which Csaki deems the "most beautiful" of the Standard Model extensions offered today – but science must make room for all possibilities.
"It's very possible that supersymmetry is not the right theory, and that's OK," he said. "The important thing is to understand the way science works, to try and make the best guesses you can, and the experimentalists go and check it. … We have to make sure we are exploring every corner, and we shouldn't leave some potentially reasonable theory out where things could be hiding."
It's good to see at least some professional physicists are honest & open minded, isn't it!

Csaki also brave enough to admit that mainstream makes blind 'guesses' as part of exploring in 'suck it and see' way. He also realizes there may be 'hidden' aspects which may be missed by conventional experiments/interpretations etc.

Shades of QM 'hidden variables', hey? :)

Sep 16, 2014
I like the supersymmetry concept

Sep 16, 2014
It's good to see they are not calling them 'scientists' any more.

'Theorists', 'philosophers', 'trekkies' or the 'faithful' is far more appropriate.

Go on, sci fi junkies, mark me down to 1/5...you know you want to...

Sep 17, 2014
The worse billion dollar scum the world has ever seen, the Higgs Physics that we learned failed to meet reality. Add more theory please while you claim your theories as Laws of nature. Right.

Sep 17, 2014
Dynamic quantum vacuum (DQV) is the fundamental arena of the universe from which originates universal space. In DQV time is a fundamental quantity which has only a mathematical existence. DQV is a basic energy from which all different particles are made. Energy of a given particle respectively diminishes energy density of DQV. Symmetry between a given particle or material body and area of diminished energy density of DQV is a fundamental symmetry of the universe which generates inertial and gravitational mass. Higgs boson is pure mathematical invention with no experimental data. What CERN discover is a characteristic flux of energy of DQV by proton collissions. HIGGS BOSON DOES NOT EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE, it is ARTIFICIALY PRODUCED PARTICLE.

Sep 17, 2014
Damn, what is it with people on here and science bashing!!! FFS you lot are idiotic!!!
I wonder which of the people who post have actually done any REAL SCIENCE and I don't mean in your kitchen sink or shed either!!!!
Science usually involves making guesses, doing some computations, predictions, experiments, then analysis and comparison. There is nothing extraordinary about it. IT's the scientific method.
Note the first part, MAKING GUESSES. Theorists come up with as many guesses as they can, so they can make predictions which can then be tested.

Sep 17, 2014
Just learned the Virginian definition of madness: Keep on repeating the same and hope that this time something else comes out.

Sep 17, 2014
How can science be a guessing game? Science is not a hocus pocus bluff. Something's gotta hold or waste money on nothing! Please read more science news before you speak another word! Higgs Physics technically failed the BB theory, and that is a fact after spending billions of dollars on LHC, CERN declared Higgs Physics cannot provide adequate explanations how the universe sustain after the bang! But someone here thinks that by making guesses you'd get proper results! lol Please grow up people, not everything in science is real. lol

Sep 17, 2014
Time to lay SUSY on the junk heap of history.

Sep 17, 2014
How can science be a guessing game?

If you don't believe big_hairy then just listen to Feynman. The first part is a guess.
https://www.youtu...apE-3FRw

Note that saying the first part is a guess is not the same as saying the first part is random. There is a method of 'educated guesses' (i.e. preferring guesses that seem to make sense over those that are purely random) and checking those first. Science is trying to find out about stuff that is not known. How else do you propose to go about that than making a best guess and testing it?

Something's gotta hold or waste money on nothing!

Spending billions on the LHC is less of a waste than subsidizing the energy it took to post your comment. If we gotta cut something then starting at your comments is surely a more effective way to go about the betterment of mankind.

Sep 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 17, 2014
A qualified guess.

As I said: an educated guess. (i.e. something that fits observation and seems plausible). That's the first starting point. Then you work your way from most plausible to less plausible - always assuming that the more plausible ones failed at some point.

Sometimes you get 'implausible sounding' stuff to hit gold (relativity, quantum mechanics, ... ) and that's where paradigm shifts happen. However one should note that this is the exception - not the rule. Jumping to the most implausible explanation as first choice is a recipe for missing the best possible explanation in most cases (i.e. for creating a lot of fruitless labor).

the SUSY was already disproved

No. Some versions of SUSY were ruled out. There are many versions.

Sep 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 17, 2014
some experiments falsified most of SUSY versions

So? What else did you expect? Many versions are available - they can't all be equally correct (or maybe even none of them are - that's a perfectly possible outcome)

Note this part in the article you cite:
The way this unfolds casts doubt on versions of the theory of physics known as Supersymmetry (Susy).

Note the word 'versions'.

As I said: there are many versions. That many were falsified is good. That's how science works. The set of viable hypotheses get narrowed down. Now the predictions of the remaining versions have to be looked at. Ideally we get to a point where one version is left (whether that is a SUSY version or not is besides the point. SUSY doesn't have any more weight than any other type of theory making the same quality of predictions)

Sep 17, 2014
Hi antialias. :) From the above article also...
the theory of supersymmetry, a popular, but experimentally unproven, extension of the Standard Model of particle physics
...implies that THE SUZY in all its 'versions' is the EXTENSION of Standard model. So your own excerpt above:
The way this unfolds casts doubt on versions of the theory of physics known as Supersymmetry (Susy)
...if read in the above context, implies that there is now doubt cast upon ALL the suzy 'version set' EXTENSION, as a WHOLE theory-of-physics 'extended version' OF the Standard Model. No? :)


Sep 17, 2014
Hi big_hairy_jimbo. :) I have no issues with, or objections to, scientists guess. I have long stated that this happens, regardless of status of person using any 'theorizing' process. The problem is the double-standard tactics which trolls used to bash so-called 'cranks' when (like me) they pointed out that scientists guess at things too.

So trolls abused 'cranks' for guessing (based on observed evidence) and theorizing therefrom.

Now that Csaki admits to guessing, the same trolls use 'educated guess' cop-out to try and distinguish between 'scientist guesses' and 'crank guesses'. lol

But this won't wash; because some of the 'scientist guesses' are so 'crackpot material' that no self-respecting 'crank' would even come up with such fantasies!

And fantasies they are, since many 'educated guessers' are themselves 'educated' in WRONG assumptions/interpretations which have been promulgated in the scientific literature/theory 'fantasy model' for too long.

Hence the problems today. :)

Sep 17, 2014
it looks like circular polarization because of the unnatural speeds the protons are collided together at created Electro magnetic Radiation had an incredible amount of energy. Emr can only travel so fast (300,000 m/s) but the energy level was high enough that the polarization made a circular effect.(where the impact was strongest) The linear EMR waves are weaker ones that are finding their own path

HERE'S MY WEBPAGE LINK. I LIKE TO REINTERPRET EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SO WE CAN HAVE MORE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE US IN PROGRESS

https://www.faceb...timeline

Sep 17, 2014
it looks like circular polarization because of the unnatural speeds the protons are collided together at created Electro magnetic Radiation had an incredible amount of energy. Emr can only travel so fast (300,000 m/s) but the energy level was high enough that the polarization made a circular effect.(where the impact was strongest) The linear EMR waves are weaker ones that are finding their own path

HERE'S MY WEBPAGE LINK. I LIKE TO REINTERPRET EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SO WE CAN HAVE MORE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE US IN PROGRESS

https://www.faceb...timeline

yes, but the EMR path is probably all confused because of the magnetic field it is. It might show something different if the detector was turned off.....this would make ANYONE'S guess wrong.

Sep 18, 2014
Two things await the huge cadre of SUSY theorists next year. First mass psychological counseling, & then interviews by historians of science writing their next books on the biggest & longest-lasting delusion in the history of physics. Not only will egos & careers be crushed en masse, but how such group-think has stagnified the progress of particle physics for 30 years now will keep these historians writing for decades.
Fortunately a few of the SUSY cognoscenti have woken up, smelled the coffee, seen the writing on the LHC wall, & set an example for their colleagues by moving on. Expect them to be joined by a rush of SUSY lemmings to the sea by 2016.

Sep 18, 2014
...if read in the above context, implies that there is now doubt cast upon ALL the suzy 'version set' EXTENSION, as a WHOLE theory-of-physics 'extended version' OF the Standard Model. No?

No. You're interpreting stuff that isn't in the article.

Note also that there are many other extensions of the standard model that aren't SUSY. So narrowing down the number of viable SUSY modles says nothing about the standard model as a whole.

Sep 18, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
No. You're interpreting stuff that isn't in the article.
Not at all, mate. The context I quoted implies clearly that the SUZY-as-a-whole-set-of-suzy-versions is an extension of the standard model. Hence the doubts cast on suzy as a whole (in all its 'versions') being a correct extension of the standard model.

Note also that there are many other extensions of the standard model that aren't SUSY.
The point related to SUZY-only extension as a whole, not any other extensions of the standard model.

So narrowing down the number of viable SUSY models says nothing about the standard model as a whole
Again, it was the SUZY-in-all-its-versions extensions of the standard model, not the un-extended-by-suzy standard model itself on which doubts have been cast.

That was the whole point of the article in the context of supersymmetry theories/experiments to date and to come. :)

Sep 18, 2014
The context I quoted implies clearly that the SUZY-as-a-whole-set-of-suzy-versions is an extension of the standard model.

Then try reading it again. Can't help you there...other than this advice: if you read a scientific article and find yourself interpreting/guessing at implications: Stop. You're going to come to a wrong conclusion. Always.

They narrowed down some suzy models. There are other suzy models which would be perfectly fine with this outcome either way.

Sep 18, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
They narrowed down some suzy models. There are other suzy models which would be perfectly fine with this outcome either way.
Huh? Here is what Csaki says:
"The upshot is that there are ways to hide supersymmetry at the LHC," Csaki said. "If the signal isn't very different from the background, it's very hard to find them. That's the problem."

"It's very possible that supersymmetry is not the right theory...".


So just speculating that some other speculative suzy 'version' may or may not be 'found' at higher energy level collisions next year, doesn't explain why NO suzy indications of ANY kind at all have been found yet. Also, there is no real explanation of why anyone would expect that any such future indications won't still be 'hidden' at any future LHC collisions energy levels, whether or not R-parity is conserved. Making things up as to 'versions' as one goes along is not really identifying 'versions' that have not been tested, it's just wild guesses, not specifically formulated/testable 'other suzy versions'. :)

Sep 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 18, 2014
Huh? Here is what Csaki says:

Read the quotes you chose again. You're not reading what's written there (you're reading what you want to interpret)

This just means, the SUSY doesn't provide testable predictions and as such it's not scientific

On the contrary. Stuff like the one in this article proposes ways to test the predictions made by some SUSY models. Prediction - test...what more do you want? Sounds scientific to me.

Sep 18, 2014
Hi antialias. :) Please would you address your replies more specifically, so as to avoid readers conflating the different posters to whom you are replying in same post? Thanks.

As for your reply to my...
Huh? Here is what Csaki says:...


...it seems to be you, not I, that might be 'reading' what you want to 'see' in the article. :)

I gave the context and Csaki's comments. It is the suzy extension in all its versions which has been cast into doubt so far by LHC 'nil' findings of any sort of 'suzy' indications/particles. The further speculation of higher energy LHC collisions possibly producing any such, based on the assumption that R-parity violation will make the difference, is just speculation, not 'another version' of suzy as you claim.

Anyhow, what 'other versions' did you have in mind, specifically. Can you list them and what 'tests' are expected to 'confirm' same IF LHC can produce associated sparticles/indications of any suzy 'version' at all? Thanks.

Sep 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 19, 2014
This is worse than epicycle model: the Ptolemaists just added new epicycles, when older models failed, not switched the existing ones.

No. The epycicle models is a fit to observation without predictive value outside the fit curve.
That's not what is happening with the SUSY models.

Yes, they are positing hypotheses that fit all current observables (there's no point in positing hypotheses that do NOT fit the current observables, is there?)
Then they make predictions based on that in ANOTHER area (e.g. what types of particles we should/should not see with based on not yet performed collision experiments.) This you can test. If the test fails the hypothesis fails. Simple as that.

If you don't see the difference between epicycles and this then I can't help you.

Sep 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more